Still burns that a law which states "private property" wouldn't include private property. Are people now expected not only to memorize the volumes of gun laws but the legislative commentaries regarding them just in case the law doesn't say what the legislature may have meant it to say?[*]Interpreting the "private property" exemption to not protect private property "open to the public" means two things.
[/list]Although I try and act as if I am likely to lose at trial, it is merely me trying to prevent myself from disillusioning myself. I still have "know or reasonably should know" and although it could cause trouble, jury nullification.
- The DA is suggesting that, when in a school zone I am to take the locked container with the handgun inside the business and remove it from its case when inside of the business. My suspicion is that the intention here is to cause more concern to the public and thus making us lose more public support.
- That the law is even more aggravated by this "open to the public" concept than it was prior to. As noted in the recent meeting at Bass Pro Shops, part of the southern parking lot is located within 1000' of a school. If one measured properly, the difference between being guilty of 626.9 and not could be the difference of merely parking one more space to the north. This means that the parking lot that was originally FULLY exempt is now not. It also means that law enforcement is able to utilize even more arbitrary discretion than it was previously allowed by the more narrow interpretation.